Page 1
`
`J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`MIAMI DIVISION
`
`ATLAS IP, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., and
`ST. JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)Case No.
`)14-21006-CIV-
`)ALTON/AGA
`)
`)
`
`DEPOSITION OF J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
`Chicago, Illinois
`September 30, 2014
`
`JOB NO: 85235
`REPORTED BY: Tina Alfaro, RPR, CRR, RMR, CLR
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`ST. JUDE 1028
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`MIAMI DIVISION
`
`ATLAS IP, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., and
`ST. JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)Case No.
`)14-21006-CIV-
`)ALTON/AGA
`)
`)
`
`DEPOSITION OF J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
`Chicago, Illinois
`September 30, 2014
`
`JOB NO: 85235
`REPORTED BY: Tina Alfaro, RPR, CRR, RMR, CLR
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`ST. JUDE 1028
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
`
`Page 2
`
`September 30, 2014
`9:06 a.m.
`
` The videotaped deposition of J. NICHOLAS
`LANEMAN, Ph.D., held at the offices of
`Latham & Watkins, LLP, 330 North Wabash Avenue, Chicago,
`Illinois, pursuant to agreement before Tina M.
`Alfaro, a Registered Professional Reporter of the
`State of Illinois.
`
`1
`
`2 3 4 5 6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
` STADHEIM & GREAR
` BY: ROBERT SPALDING, ESQ.
` 400 North Michigan Avenue
` Chicago, Illinois 60611
` On behalf of the Plaintiff;
`
` GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
` BY: WAYNE BARSKY, ESQ.
` NEEMA JALALI, ESQ.
` 333 South Grand Avenue
` Los Angeles, California 90071
` On behalf of the Defendants.
`
`ALSO PRESENT: J. Aron Allen (St. Jude)
` Steven Mitchell (St. Jude)
` Daniel Van der Weide (Univ of
` Wisconsin)
` Jeremy Mangan (videographer)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
` I N D E X
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`WITNESS PAGE
`
`J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
`
` By Mr. Barsky 6
`
` EXHIBITS
`LANEMAN EXHIBITS PAGE
`Exhibit 100 6
` Expert report
`
`Exhibit 101 6
` Expert report
`Exhibit 102 42
` Telemetry protocol
`
`Exhibit 103 42
` Zarlink design manual
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the record.
`This marks the beginning of media No. 1 in the
`deposition of J. Nicholas Laneman in the matter of
`Atlas IP, LLC versus St. Jude Medical, Inc. in the
`U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida,
`Miami Division, Case No. 1421006. This deposition
`is being held at 330 North Wabash, Chicago, Illinois
`on September 30, 2014, and the time is now 9:06 a.m.
`Will attorneys please identify themselves.
` MR. SPALDING: Robert Spalding, Stadheim &
`Grear on behalf of Atlas.
` MR. BARSKY: Wayne Barsky, Gibson Dunn.
` MR. JALALI: Neema Jalali, Gibson Dunn.
` MR. MITCHELL: Steven Mitchell, St. Jude
`Medical.
` MR. ALLEN: Aron Allen, St. Jude Medical.
` MR. VAN DER WEIDE: Daniel Van Der Weide,
`University of Wisconsin.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter
`please swear in the witness.
`(Witness sworn.)
`
`WHEREUPON:
`
`J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.,
`called as a witness herein, having been first duly
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 172
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
` A. Again, except in these dysfunctioning
`situations where the remote goes out of range, I
`believe that the MAC protocol as taught or described
`in claims 11 and 14 is such that remotes are
`transmitting in the cycle, a remote is transmitting
`in the cycle.
` Q. To be within the scope of claims 11 and 14,
`is it your opinion that the system must ensure,
`guarantee that under normal operating circumstances
`a frame will always be sent by the remote to the hub
`in response to a request?
` MR. SPALDING: Objection to form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Under normal operating circumstances when
`the hub and the remote form a group -- I'm sorry.
`Excuse me. I got this all jumbled up and I'm going
`to have to...
`Within a cycle the MAC protocol is such
`that the hub and the remotes transmit and receive
`frames.
` Q. That wasn't my question. My question was
`whether or not for a system to be within the scope
`of claims 11 and 14 it must guarantee that there
`will always be a remote transmitting a frame to the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 173
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
`hub in every communication cycle?
` MR. SPALDING: Objection to form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. No.
` Q. For a system to be within claims 11 and 14,
`is it possible that there will be situations that
`arise under normal operating circumstances where a
`remote does not transmit a frame back to the hub?
` A. I think I have an answer, but I'd like you
`to repeat the question, if you don't mind.
` Q. Not at all.
`For a system to be within the scope of
`claims 11 and 14, is it possible that there will be
`situations that arise under normal operating
`circumstances where a remote does not transmit a
`frame back to the hub?
` MR. SPALDING: Objection to the form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is one of those situations where the
`remotes do not have any data to be communicated back
`to the hub?
` MR. SPALDING: Objection to form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 174
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
` A. Just to make sure I understood the previous
`question, you said is it possible to have a remote
`not send a frame to the hub under normal operating
`circumstances.
` Q. I'll repeat the question.
`For a system to be within the scope of
`claims 11 and 14, is it possible that there will be
`situations that arise under normal operating
`circumstances where a remote in a single remote
`system does not transmit a frame back to the hub?
` MR. SPALDING: Objection to form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I would not view the exchange of data in
`which that circumstance prevails to be an infringing
`communication cycle. So the particular exchange of
`data that you described I would not view -- I would
`not view as falling within this claim limitation,
`specifically the hub establishing repeating
`communication cycles, each of which has intervals
`during which the hub and the remotes --
` COURT REPORTER: Slow down, please.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. (Continuing) -- transmit and receive
`frames.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 175
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
` Q. And why is that? Why is it you would not
`view that as falling within the scope of the claims?
` A. That particular exchange of data does not
`have the hub -- does not have the remote, sorry,
`transmitting a frame.
` Q. And therefore what? What limitation is not
`met in claims 11 and 14 --
` A. The lack of transmission from the remote
`prevents there from being a communication cycle.
` Q. So you're saying that the lack of a return
`transmission from all of the remotes in the group
`means that there is not a communication cycle within
`the meaning of the '734 Patent; is that what you're
`saying?
` MR. SPALDING: Objection, form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. What I'm saying is I don't read that claim
`limitation on the situation as you've described it
`to me.
` Q. All right. Let me give you the -- let's --
`let's be specific. There is a multiple remote
`system. Are you with me so far?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Under normal circumstances at least one of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 176
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
`the remotes is transmitting a frame back to the hub.
`Does that make sense so far?
` A. Yes.
` Q. But it is possible that in a given scenario
`none of the remotes in that multiple remote system
`will have any data to send back to the hub and will
`not use their allocated transmission opportunities.
`Does that make sense so far?
` A. I believe so. Just to make sure I'm
`understanding you, we're saying I have this system,
`there are exchanges -- there are cycles of
`communication, inbound, outbound communication, in
`many of those cycles of communication there can be a
`trans- -- there's a transmission from at least one
`remote to the hub, and there are some circumstances
`in which there is no transmission from any remote to
`the hub. So we have a sequence of cycles, multiple
`remotes. In some of those cycles there is at least
`one transmission from a remote, in some of those
`cycles there is no transmission from any remote. Is
`that the context that you're describing?
` Q. The only thing I would change is there
`might not be a transmission from a remote in some of
`the cycles. The system is designed so that if in a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 177
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
`given communication cycle all of the remotes in the
`system have no data to send back to the hub, no
`remote sends data back to the hub and that might
`occur, it might not occur, is that system within the
`scope of claims 11 and 14?
` A. The way I understand these claims --
` Q. Yes.
` A. -- that system is capable of having
`repeating communication cycles, each of which has
`intervals during which the hub and the remotes
`transmit and receive frames.
` Q. And therefore --
` A. In accordance with the MAC protocol.
`Sorry.
` Q. And therefore, in your opinion, would be
`within the scope of claims 11 and 14 of the
`'734 Patent?
` A. At least this particular limitation that
`we're focused on of claims 11 and 14 of the
`'734 Patent.
` Q. So to be clear, a multiple remote system
`which is capable of having repeating communication
`cycles, each of which has intervals for the hub and
`remotes to transmit and receive frames, is within
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 178
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
`the scope of the claim limitation that we've been
`discussing in claims 11 and 14, correct? And to be
`specific, I'm speaking now of the limitation that
`appears at column 48, lines 7 through 9 of the
`'734 Patent. Is that correct, Dr. Laneman?
` A. Sorry. Can you repeat the question one
`last time?
` Q. Sure.
`It is your testimony that a multiple remote
`system which is capable of having two or more
`communication cycles, each of which has intervals
`for the hub and remotes to transmit and receive
`frames, is within the scope of the limitation in
`claims 11 and 14 of the '734 Patent that we've been
`discussing, correct? And in particular I'm
`referring to the limitation that appears at
`column 48, lines 7 through 9 in claim 11, and
`there's identical language in claim 14. Is that
`correct?
` MR. SPALDING: Objection, form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that would be the case even if that
`same system were also capable of situations in which
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 179
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
`the remotes would have no data to communicate back
`to the hub and would send no return transmission to
`the hub in response to requests from the hub,
`correct?
` MR. SPALDING: Objection to form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Those periods of time where there's a
`transmission from the hub but no transmissions from
`any remote I would not read as a communication cycle
`in the context of this claim limitation.
` Q. And so a system that is capable of having
`two or more cycles with return transmissions but
`also capable of having no return transmissions from
`the remotes in response to a request from the hub
`would still be within the scope of claim 11 and 14
`of the '734 Patent, in your opinion; is that what
`you're saying?
` MR. SPALDING: Objection to form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Again, the cycles in which there are
`transmissions from the remotes I would view as
`falling within the scope of this limitation. The
`periods of time where there's a transmission from
`the hub but no transmission from the remotes, I
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
`
`Page 180
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`J. NICHOLAS LANEMAN, Ph.D.
`would not be -- I would not view as being within the
`scope of -- I wouldn't call that a communication
`cycle in this context, and I would interpret this
`claim as requiring -- as reading on those former
`exchanges where there are transmissions from the
`remotes.
` Q. And therefore a system which allows for
`both possibilities would be within the scope of
`claims 11 and 14; is that your testimony, sir?
` MR. SPALDING: Objection, form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. For this claim limitation and the
`corresponding one in claim 14, yes.
` Q. All right. We're making progress. I'll go
`back briefly to the '734 Patent and some of the
`discussion we had earlier about communication
`cycles.
`
`Dr. Laneman, in the '734 Patent, why is it
`important for the remotes to know when the
`communication cycle is going to start?
` A. As I understand the '734 specification,
`it's important for the remotes to know when the
`communication cycle will start so they can have
`their receivers on and receive the so-called
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
